Moontown

ORDER NO. 2 - RESOLUTION TO AUTHORISE
THE MINISTER OF FINANCE TO RAISE BY
THE ISSUE OF SAVINGS BONDS IN
BARBADOS MONEY UP TO A LIMIT OF
$100 000 000 FOR FINANCING SUCH
CAPITAL OR OTHER EXPENDITURES THE
MINISTER MAY DETERMINE

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have a
Resolution before this House where we want to raise the
limit to $100 million. After listening to the speakers last
night and the Honourable Member for St. Peter, we were
told that the sugar revenue in this country in the coming
year will be much lower than we had anticipated earlier. At
the same time, we have a situation in this country where
nearly all the hotels seem bent on going to all-inclusive
tourism. I am suggesting…

Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to you, I have to refer you to the Standing Orders
dealing with relevance. I have not in the course of this
debate referred to any sugar money nor tourism. I,
therefore, could not, in a Resolution dealing with savings
bonds allow a matter like this to entertain the House along
the direction being sought by the Honourable Member for
St. Lucy.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.
Lucy, yesterday on another occasion I did allow a lot of
latitude. I am suggesting that you address the matter before
the House today, please. This matter relates to the issue of
Savings Bonds. This is what the Resolution is about. There
will be no latitude whatsoever today. We are dealing with
the issue before the House today.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Thank you very much, Sir.
I am grateful for your ruling. It is obvious lo me that the
Government needs to increase their cash flow and they are
asking for the limit to be raised to $100 million. I am
suggesting that, if we are going to be having problems with
our receipts and we need to increase our cash flow, what
we have to do is to make sure that we have enough
revenue to repay the savings bonds. One of the ways we
can repay the savings bonds is to make sure that we get
maximum revenue from tourism. Any problem with that
one, Sir?
Mr. SPEAKER: You go ahead. I will tell you when
there is a problem.

Mr. D. St. E. KEULMAN: Mr. Speaker, Government
finds itself in a situation where it will have a problem with
revenue and they have decided to increase the savings
bonds limit. The receipts from tourism will not be able to
repay the savings bonds that they will have to borrow.
Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: Mr. Speaker, may I say that
the Honourable Member is on the point of misleading the
House? The receipts from tourism are not pan of
Government’s revenue and he really should not be
confused in these debates. It has nothing to do whatsoever
with savings bonds and I will await your ruling as to the
relevance of what we are hearing in the light of the matter
before the House.
Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, receipts form
part of Government’s revenue.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.
Lucy are you through?
Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: No, Sir. I thought you
were making a ruling so I sat
Mr. SPEAKER: I will make it at the appropriate time.
Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: What I am saying is, Sir,
that once the revenue from tourism increases the revenue
of Government increases.

Mr. SPEAKER: Well, I will now make it then.
Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: You agree, Sir?
Mr. SPEAKER: No. I am making the ruling now
because I would like you to address the matter here.
Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Savings Bonds, Sir. We
are dealing with revenue to help repay the savings bonds.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are dealing with the bonds. But
we are not dealing with what you are dealing with. There
is no latitude given today. We went all over die place
yesterday, not today. We are dealing with this today.
Mr. D. St E. KELLMAN: It is obvious that the
savings bonds that we have in front of us are being nosed
because there is a revenue problem of Government They
say that I cannot talk about all-inclusive tourism and the
effect it is going to have on the Government’s revenue.
Mr. SPEAKER: What has that got to do with this?

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: You want consideration of
staff. Okay. If they want to have consideration of staff, I
have no problem with that. But what I would say is that the
reason why they are raising the bonds to $100 million is
that they would be having serious shortfalls in their
revenue. I am saying that if they are having serious
shortfalls in their revenue and they have to raise savings
bonds that they should not go towards the line of
borrowing but what they should do is to restructure the
tourism…

Mr. D. St E. KELLMAN: No. …where they would
encourage the private sector to build more hotels so that
all-inclusive tourism would not affect the tourism that we
have now. What we have is a situation where you have two
concepts competing for the same number of rooms.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St
Lucy…

Mr. D. St E. KELLMAN: I am saying that we should
increase our rooms.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St
Lucy, you obviously want to say something about tourism.
Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: I am dealing with revenue,
Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: The time will come when you will
have the appropriate Resolution. I would like you to
address this Resolution before the House.

Mr. D. St E. KELLMAN: That is why I am saying
that if they need to increase the Savings Bonds in this
country they have to bring proper reasons why they are
bringing a Resolution like this to the House, not just bring
Savings Bonds to the House and say they are bringing
Savings Bonds to accommodate us, Sir. It is a fact that
they cannot be just accommodating us, because, if they

were accommodating us, they would pass the law for $50
million or $55 million and not $100 million.
As I said we would discuss all-inclusive tourism and
how we can increase…

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: … when I get the
opportunity next year. I wish you a Happy Christmas, Sir,
and I hope that my Christmas present next year would be
latitude like the Prime Minister.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.
Lucy, thank you. You have to pick your latitude on the
right day. Yesterday was the day for latitude. The question
is…

 ORDER NO. 7 - RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
GUARANTEE BY THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE
FOR FINANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST NECESSARY FOR THE
REDEMPTION OF BONDS ISSUED BY THE
BARBADOS AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT CO.
LTD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE
SUGAR INDUSTRY

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, on the last
occasion I said I would support the Resolution that was
brought before this Honourable Chamber, but this
afternoon, Sir, while looking at this document I have some
problems. I want to know from the Government if this is
a loan or if this is a grant to the Barbados Agricultural
Management Company.

The reason why I am asking this, Sir, is that I have
a situation in front of me where we are guaranteeing $42.6
million to the Barbados Agricultural Management Company
to be repaid in three years and the Honourable Member for
Christ Church South said that this would be financed from
the surplus from local sugars.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Yes, you said that. I am
saying, Sir, it is true that over the years that the surplus
from the local sugars went into the Sinking Fund but that
was when the borrowings were redeemable over a longer
period and I am saying that we cannot finance these bonds
in three years. The only way that these bonds can be
financed in three years is if the Honourable Member for
Christ Church South has a plan to increase the price of
sugar and then the taxpayers in this country will not be
able to pay for the price of sugar in order to finance these
bonds in three years. 9.35 p.m.

We have here, Sir, that by June 30, 1995 they will be
repaying $3.745 million. That amount is possible from the
imported sugar. I would like to find out from him how in
1996 they will finance $11 million from the surplus. That
is not all. On June 30, 1997 they will be looking for $27.7
million from the surplus of the imported sugar that will be
sold on the local market. I would like to know where they
will be getting this money from and that is why I ask the
question whether this is a loan or a grant to the Barbados
Agricultural Management Co. It is true I would like to wish
the new Chairman well and I know he has a difficult job.
I have another problem. It is said that this is for the
purpose of financing the sugar industry and I have a
problem with this because in my previous statement I said
that the sugar industry would never be profitable.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: The Honourable Member
for Christ Church South said that also, and the Honourable
Member for St. Peter said it also, so you disagree with us?
I am saying that if you have a Resolution asking us to
guarantee something for the sugar industry I might have a
problem but if you ask us to guarantee something for the
agriculture industry I will support it. If the wording here is
wrong correct it quickly so that I can support this
Resolution.

It can only be a grant, Mr. Speaker, because to ask
the sugar industry to repay $42.6 million plus interest in
three years’ time is impossible. I would like the
Honourable Members from the other side to tell me how
they are going to finance this because if they do not,
339
they are misleading the House and I know that you would
not allow that so you would have to ask them to correct
that.

In 1982 when Portvale Factory was being built the
Barbados Labour Party guaranteed a loan for the Barbados
Sugar Industry Ltd., and part of it was borrowed on the
overseas market so I cannot understand now how there can
be one argument in 1982 and the Honourable Member for
Christ Church South is using another argument today about
local borrowings. I might agree with you that if in 1982
you had borrowed the money on the local market we would
not have found ourselves in a situation where we had to
pay back a lot of money to the Japanese because we
borrowed that money, and the Honourable Member for
Christ Church South would agree with me that we
borrowed the money from the CDB when the yen was low
and we repaid it when the yen was high.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, imagine the
Honourable Member for St. Joseph talking about bullet
loans in this House and is sitting next to the Honourable
Member for Christ Church South when he helped borrowed
one, and he is again, Sir, guaranteeing another bullet loan
for the Barbados Agricultural Management Co. where they
are borrowing a loan to be repaid in three years’ time.
Bullet loans? It seems to me, Sir, every time they get a
new term they get bullet loans, thanks to the Honourable
Member for St. Joseph.

It goes further, Sir. We had been accused of allowing
plantation owners to subdivide land but now I can
understand why the Barbados Labour Party would
guarantee a loan to the Barbados Agricultural Management
Co. to be repaid in three years because the Honourable
Member for Christ Church South said that there are
plantations in my constituency that all they have to do is
get land permission and they do not have to worry about
the debt. The plan is that they will lend the Barbados
Agricultural Management Co. $42 million. They will not be
able to repay it and then they would get some of the
plantation to subdivide. I can only have that analysis and
I can only make an analysis of that based on the
information from the Honourable Member for Christ
Church South. He gave us all of that information.

The Honourable Member for Christ Church South
also said that the equipment has not been paid for and there
is no other person who can inform this House better, why
the equipment has not been paid for on the plantation than
my friend, the Honourable Member for Christ Church
South. He knows that there is a valuation problem and he
knows that there are lawyers who will advise their clients
and the two sides will not agree, and that is why the
equipment has not been paid for.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Sir, the Honourable
Member knows that accountants and lawyers do not agree
because the lawyers even believe today that accountants
should not deal with offshore business.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I always
have good sugar. I still have some.
Mr. Speaker, I have also said in this House that I do
not believe that we should guarantee money to pay the
private sector unless we put some conditions. I am having
problems again. This is the second time I am speaking on
a Resolution like this and I am not hearing the conditions
because when you are talking about $42 million, at first I
thought this $42 million was for the B AMC alone but I am
seeing today that it is for the sugar industry which tells me
that it is going to the BAMC to be passed on to the other
sectors. I am saying that, if some of this money is to be
given to the other sector we as Honourable Members
should have some say in what they are doing on their
plantations.

We cannot come in here and set policies and where
we give people money and they have no conditions set to
that money because we would find ourselves in the same
situation as the Honourable Member for St. Joseph found
himself in 1982 where he was able to give price support,
no conditions in place and they did whatever they felt like
doing. We cannot have this. We must have conditions.
Once we have conditions the policy set in place by the
Barbados Labour Party will go far. I am quite prepared to
support them in this Resolution but they must also be
prepared to set conditions and they must also explain to us
how they are going to finance this $42 million in three
years’ time.

I would like to believe the Honourable Member for
Christ Church South but I know that the amount of money
going into the Sinking Fund cannot be over $42 million so
it tells me that the Government of Barbados would have to
find money to redeem these bonds. If they are only
pretending that they are guaranteeing these loans when in
truth and in fact it is really their liability, they should tell
the House that this is their liability and this is part of the
capital they are putting into the Barbados Agricultural
Management Company.

I believe this is the plan because if one listened to the
speech by the Honourable Member for Christ Church South
he talked a lot about capitalisation so I believe that this is
a back hand way of capitalising the Barbados Agricultural
Management Co. but, at the same time, it is a way to
340
help give assistance to the private growers. If that is what
the Honourable Member for Christ Church South was
saying, I would like them to admit it on the floor of the
House. We should not be coming to this House having to
ask questions like these. We should have all of these things
put in front of us where we could come and say we agree
with this or disagree with that but I should not have to be
speaking on a Resolution like this. 9.45 p.m.
I should like to support this, Sir. But I am still asking
them before they bring it to the vote to explain these things
for me because the sugar industry, I agree, has value and
has always been an industry that provided foreign exchange
for this country and it is the only industry that you could
guarantee the foreign exchange from. Whenever I have
spoken, I have always said that if the Central Bank of this
country could tie the other industries down like how they
tied down the sugar industry this country would go far. I
know that the Honourable Member for Christ Church South
would agree with me. If we could do the same thing in the
tourism industry, we would have no problems.

Soon I will be coming to this House and I will be
asking the House to do something like that for the simple
reason that we have a situation where we are getting
involved in other industries where all the money stands a
chance of staying outside. As a citizen of Barbados I have
a right to come to this House and ask the Minister of
Finance to do everything in his power to make sure that all
the foreign exchange that should come into the country
comes in. The Honourable Member for Christ Church
South knows what I am talking about. He will agree with
me on this, that if the sugar industry can bring in all of its
foreign exchange, the manufacturing sector and the tourism
sector that the Central Bank should put something in place
to make sure that all the foreign exchange comes in.
Whenever they want some they apply to the Central Bank
and they get it.
I have nothing more to say on this matter, Sir. Thank
you very much.

June 28, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Ronald SandersBy Sir Ronald Sanders
When heads of government of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) meet in early July, a big responsibility will fall on the shoulders of Guyana’s President Bharrat Jagdeo as chairman to heal the wounds that are causing the regional project to haemorrhage.
President Jagdeo will have to dig deep within himself for the diplomatic skills that will be necessary not only to suppress his own annoyance over recent events in CARICOM, but also to guide his colleague leaders to practical measures that will fix the rifts between them and set the CARICOM ship upon an agreed course of further progress that benefits all.

All other CARICOM leaders will have to contribute to the healing process by showing a high level of maturity in their discourse with each other and by eschewing a desire for purely short-term national advantage in favour of longer term gain for all.
The economic prospects that CARICOM countries face are deeply troubling. Addressing them at every level, especially international bargaining, calls for a united CARICOM, not a fractious one.
The current Chairman of CARICOM, the Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow, captured the dire conditions confronting CARICOM countries when, on June 24, he told a special session of the UN General Assembly that for the Caribbean “the current set of economic conditions is the worst to have overtaken us since independence”.
There was no exaggeration in this declaration by Mr. Barrow, nor was there any hyperbole in his further assertion that “there is now no prospect of our countries achieving the time-bound Millennium Development Goals”.

The reality is that given the decline in the prices of their principal exports, reduction in aid, the significant downturn in tourism, the dramatic fall in remittances from their Diaspora, and the severe strictures in borrowing money on the commercial market, CARICOM countries are experiencing a new level of desperation particularly as many of them have a debt to GDP ratio of over 100%. If they were companies, many of these countries would be regarded as bankrupt.
Turning to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is of little help to them in the present circumstances. For they can only borrow in proportion to their quotas and their quotas – particularly for the six small countries of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) – is too small to contribute effectively to their needs. Further, IMF money is the one source of funding that cannot be written-off so there is no prospect of relief from this debt.

Of course, several countries are in such dire straits that they will end up in IMF programmes, not only because of the effect of the current global crisis on their economies, but also because of poor policies pursued in the past. Some countries have already sought help from special IMF windows – Grenada and St Vincent and the Grenadines among them. Others, such as Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda, are now teetering on the edge of full IMF programmes and will shortly be there.
The situation is worse now for CARICOM countries, except for Guyana, because over the last three decades in which a new generation has reached adulthood, the region has enjoyed a summer of relative plenty making the current insufficiency difficult to manage.

A big contribution to the season of plenty in the decade of the 1980’s was preferential access to the European Union (EU) market for sugar, bananas and rum and a high level of aid from the US, the EU and Canada. But the summer of plenty has now turned to the winter of drought, and the full Economic Partnership Agreement that CARICOM countries signed with the EU last year bears no resemblance to the treaties of the past.
In Guyana’s case, it has been a Highly Indebted Poor Country for most of the last three decades only recently being pulled out of the most difficult economic circumstances by virtue of debt write-offs. Nonetheless, Guyana too is now plagued with falling prices for bauxite, a decline in remittances, and the loss of its preferential market in the EU for sugar. Only relatively high prices for its gold production make a significant contribution to the economy.

Unemployment levels have already begun to increase in every country, including Trinidad and Tobago, despite its comparative wealth in oil and gas. And, the forecast for improvement is not encouraging.
It is clear that CARICOM countries will suffer the effects of the recession in the US and Europe for some time after these areas begin to recover. Given the very high levels of unemployment in the US and UK especially, there will be a lag time before employment reaches a stage where tourism and remittances return to their 2007 levels for the Caribbean.
Given this troubling international environment, the first business of CARICOM Heads of Government as they gather for their 30th meeting should be to agree that there was never a time in their history when there was a greater need for a Caribbean Community and for CARICOM itself. The problems that beset CARICOM countries in coping with the severe challenges of the global environment will not be overcome by national action alone.

If they were to come to such an agreement and to publicly declare it, they will have to grab the nettle of some issues that are ripe for resolution by reasonable but frank discussion. One of them is the matter of migration of CARICOM people within the Community; another is the seeming division within CARICOM being caused by the proposal for an Economic Union between members of the OECS and Trinidad and Tobago; a third is the abject failure to put in place effective governance of CARICOM; and the last and most important is an agreed plan for implementing the single market and economy with penalties for every infraction.
This cannot be beyond the capacity of the Heads of Government of CARICOM. This is crunch time, and time for leaders to deliver the regional project over which generations of Caribbean people have laboured.

In the words of Dean Barrow, CARICOM’s Chairman, talking about the United Nations on June 24, “What do we tell our people? That we attended yet another dress rehearsal for a shadow play? Another installment in this drama of progress, that never actually takes place?”
Mr. Barrow’s answer to his own poignant questions was “No”. And, so it must be also at the CARICOM Summit in Guyana in July. It must be a resounding “No” to further shadow plays. Consequent upon this Summit, measurable advances must be made by CARICOM leaders or they will have failed their people and a price will be paid.
(The writer is a Consultant and former Caribbean diplomat)
Responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com

Published on: 6/28/2009.

MORE THAN 11 per cent of the national health budget is “directly” spent on the elderly.

And $6.3 million is spent on the Alternative Care for the Elderly Programme alone.

Minister of Health Donville Inniss made the disclosure on Thursday at the opening of a two-day workshop hosted by the Barbados Elderly Care Association (BECA) at PomMarine Hotel.

He said while the increase in life expectancy and achievements in health care were two things to be proud of, a high percentage of the ageing population suffered from chronic non-communicable diseases which were costly to treat.

“With the advances in medical and health care, people are living longer and this has begun to strain the resources provided through the state-managed provision.

“Moreover, those who find themselves with few social networks into old age have been found to be increasingly vulnerable to poverty,” Inniss said.

With so much money being channelled to the elderly, Inniss said, the ministry was reviewing its procedures for monitoring residential and assisted living facilities.

“This will involve continual monitoring of the status of each home, increased inspection visits, outstanding concerns, compliance with formal notices and action taken,” he said.

“My ministry is not prepared to settle for mediocrity. We have a legal and moral duty to ensure that our elderly residents are placed in a safe and secure environment where they receive optimal care and attention,” Inniss added.

He told the nursing home owners that they had a duty to raise the standards of their facilities and weed out the bad ones, because a “bad nursing home tarnishes the reputation of all of them”.

Inniss said the ministry and the BECA would be working together to determine minimum standards, and they would agree on maintenance and penalties where necessary.

Association president Maureen Ward said the workshop was part of the group’s ongoing training programme.

She said one of the aims was to bring a single standard to elderly care that would be mirrored in the approximately 60 homes across the island. (YB)

Tools: Print  |  E-mail  |  

PRIME MINISTER David Thomspon speaking on the immigration matter involving Guyanese at yesterday’s press conference at Grantley Adams International Airport. At left is Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence and Security Gilbert Greaves.

Published on: 6/28/2009.

by MARIA BRADSHAW

EIGHT PEOPLE have been deported from Barbados since June 1, when the new immigration policy for non-nationals came into effect - and only four of these were Guyanese.

Prime Minister David Thompson disclosed this yesterday saying he was bewildered and disgusted at the “reckless and grossly unfair” generalisations and slurs levelled against public officers in particular, and Barbadians in general, on the issue of unchecked migration into Barbados.

The Prime Minister said since the new policy was introduced, immigration officers, with the support of the police, had continued their efforts in trying to locate and remove people, of whatever nationality, found to be residing in Barbados illegally.

Thompson, who returned to the island yesterday morning, was speaking at a specially convened Press conference in the VIP Lounge at the Grantley Adams International Airport.

He said that according to data compiled by the police and Immigration Department, from June 1 to 26, visits were made to 15 residences on June 9, 11 and 13, between 3:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m.

“These visits led to the detention and removal of 47 non-nationals 34 of whom were Guyanese nationals, who were in the country illegally”, he stated.

Of these, the Prime Minister said, eight people were deported, four of whom were Guyanese.

These people, he said, were deported for reasons such as “theft, overstaying and possession of a false work permit stamp, destitute and deception”.

The Prime Minister also disclosed that 177 people

had had their stay extended, 71 of whom were Guyanese.

He said there were also 380 applications for renewal of short-term work permits - 294 of those on behalf of Guyanese nationals.

“I have no reason to believe that the majority of these applications will not be approved”, said Thompson, adding that in his opinion, the level of activity by Immigration and police during this period “does not in any way represent any hardening of attitude or abrasive action towards Guyanese nationals.”

Of the many negative reports from deported Guyanese about bad treatment at the hands of immigration officials, Thompson said:

“Some of the so-called personal accounts I have heard are sickening” and he charged that “unprofessional conduct will not be tolerated under my watch”.

“I wish to state here and now that the Government of Barbados has never, does not and will never sanction, condone or even turn a blind eye to the issue of degradation or denial of human rights to anyone visiting or resident on these shores. . . just as we will not permit illegal and unchecked migration to continue, so too will we not permit the abuse or violation of rights and privileges of persons resident on our shores, under whatever circumstances,” the Prime Minister stressed.

He invited all aggrieved persons to supply evidence of any negative treatment, but said that most of the bizarre stories were “untrue and without foundation”.

“Tell us who, what and where!

Published on: 6/28/2009.

by MARIA BRADSHAW

PRIME MINISTER David Thompson has no intention of shouting across the Caribbean Sea at, or with colleague Prime Ministers, or other high ranking government officials regarding the issue of immigration.

Yesterday, Thompson in a statement to the Press, said he would be holding a Press conference with journalists when he visits Guyana next week to reiterate Barbados’ policy position on immigration and the free movement of CARICOM nationals in and out of the country.

“I have said before and I repeat today that I have no intention of shouting across the Caribbean Sea at or with colleague Prime Ministers or other high ranking government officials . . . I will not be hiding from, or ducking the issues.

“There is clearly a need for public education of all interest groups, at all levels, and I intend to lead from the front on this issue,” the Prime Minister said.

He said his Government will pay to have that Press conference “beamed and broadcast live from Georgetown to every capital city of CARICOM and indeed across the world-wide web”, adding “there must be no ambiguity about
where Barbados stands on this issue”.

Thompson made the comments at a Press conference yesterday at the Grantley Adams International Airport following reports from Guyanese who said they were ill-treated and deported from the island.

The Prime Minister lashed out at critics, especially those expressing disgust at what he called: “the reckless and grossly unfair generalisations and slurs” levelled against public officers and Barbadians, even by some of our own who cannot see beyond their naked partisan and political ambition.”

He warned that harmful damage was being done to the country.

“I am saying to whomever it may concern; bring the evidence; come with facts; come with actual incidents and experiences, or leave the good name of Barbadians and of Barbados alone!”

He said much of the bizarre stories peddled on blog sites, talk show programmes, in newspaper columns and asserted by so-called professional thinkers, were untrue and without foundation.

“There is no evidence to corroborate, or even create a circumstantial setting for such incidents to have taken place,”
he said.

Thompson said he would not be deterred by those who have sought “to drain every ounce of emotional blood from this issue”.

He urged Barbadians contributing to the “raging debate” to temper their remarks with reason, research and a quest for truth.

“I would like to appeal to Barbadians at home and abroad to put Barbados first in their submissions on this sensitive, but absolutely necessary debate,”
he said.

“The bottom line here is that Barbados has a serious problem of illegal, unchecked and undocumented migration and this government is doing something about it,” he said.

“The Government that I have the honor to lead, will do right by Barbados, even if at times, it has to go it alone.”

Published: Sunday | June 28, 2009

Amoy Virgo, wealth adviser at NCB Capital Markets. - Contributed Let’s say, having worked for many years, that your salary is now $2 million.

You might be tempted to call yourself a millionaire, but technically, you would only be correct if the sum of your income, less your debts, remained above $1 million when bills were paid.

In other words, it is your ‘net worth’ which determines your wealth status.

Net worth is effectively a grand total of all your assets minus your liabilities. It is a measure of your wealth at a particular point in time.

Knowing your net worth, says Amoy Virgo, a wealth adviser of NCB Capital Markets Limited, is a useful tool to measure financial progress from year to year, or as often as you prefer.

Keeping tabs on what you own versus what you owe also helps you develop a comprehensible indicator of your overall financial health, and is the basis on which to set goals for your children, their education and your own, and retirement.

Here is Virgo’s eight-point guide to tracking your wealth.

Establishing your net worth

Calculating your net worth is easy. It only requires some basic financial information regarding the assets you own, for example home, car, jewellery and investments, as well as the debt that you owe, such as your mortgage and credit-card bills.

First, add up your assets, and then add up your debts. Your net worth is derived from subtracting your debts from your assets. The formula is:

Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth

The calculations can be done in a few easy steps.

Step One: Start by listing your largest assets and their value. This would normally include your home and motor vehicles. Make sure you use accurate estimates in current dollars.

Be conservative, and also remember to subtract the cost of selling your possessions. You should, for example, cut the value of your house by the amount you would pay a broker to sell it, as well as other closing and legal fees.

Step two: List your more liquid assets and their value. This includes checking and savings accounts, cash, certificates of deposits, repurchase agreements, or other investments, such as retirement accounts.

Step three: List personal items that may be of value. This could include jewellery, coin collections, musical instruments, furniture and antiques. You don’t need to itemise everything.

Step four: Take all of the assets you have listed in the first three steps and add their value. This number represents your total assets.

Step five: Start listing your liabilities and the amounts owed. Again, start by listing the major outstanding liabilities, such as the balance on your mortgage, or car loans.

Step six: List all of your personal liabilities, such as credit cards, student loans, or any other debt, and the amounts owed.

Step seven: Add up all of your liabilities.

Step eight: Subtract the total liabilities from the total assets and you will have your net worth.

Remember that it does not matter how big or how small the net figure is. Even if it is negative, this is just a starting point to have something to compare against in the future.

You should repeat this process at least once a year and compare it with the previous year’s number.

You can then determine if you are making progress or getting further behind. This is what is truly important and not just the actual number.

Published: Sunday | June 28, 2009

Avia Collinder, Business Reporter

Jamaica’s largest commercial banks are reporting a significant growth in the number of customers resorting to online banking, a free service.

The trend suggests a direct response to banks’ increasing service charges, which represent billions in annual revenues for the big two - Scotiabank and National Commercial Bank (NCB).

Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica (BNS), which upgraded its online service in the first quarter of this year, has already seen a 25 per cent jump in the use of online banking only halfway through year, according to Maya Walrond, senior vice-president of customer experience at the institution.

Some 37,000, or 10 per cent, of its active customers use the e-banking service of the bank, which is the local sector leader in deposits.

NCB, the largest bank by assets, is reporting that e-banking represented 46 per cent of all transactions in May this year, up from 42 per cent recorded in January.

Together, BNS and NCB control 70 per cent of the commercial banking market.

easier than telephone banking

“As more people get access to Internet, more are using it as their primary way of banking. It is the easiest of all our channels, even easier than telephone banking,” said Walrond.

She is quick to underscore the savings being realised by those who bank online.

“They are saving the fees they would normally pay for transactions within a branch, bill-payment charges and most important, they are saving time. They also get the additional convenience of being able to do their banking normally pay for transition within a branch, bill-payment charges, and most important, they are saving time. They also get the additional convenience of being able to do their banking anywhere, any time,” she told the Sunday Business.

According to the bank officer, the most popular use to which BNS customers put the bank’s online system is to “check whether their money is still there, and making sure that transactions are accurate.”

Meanwhile, Claudette Rodriguez, assistant general manager of the card services and e-channels unit at NCB, said during the January to May period, the bulk of online transactions were for the transfer of funds between accounts, an activity which grew 15 per cent.

NCB also offers transfers free through telebanking, while BNS charges $12 per transaction.

second-most popular

NCB also said its online portal or e-banking facility was second-most popular for the payment of bills, which saw a 35 per cent rise over the same period.

Utility bill-payment costs $140 at NCB, but is free online. Scotiabank discontinued the service about a year or more ago.

Only a minority - 36 per cent - of users who log on to NCB’s e-banking service actually do a transaction, leaving the bank official to speculate that the other 64 per cent are checking bank balances or utilising the email option to make service requests.

Last year, several banks, including BNS and NCB, embarked on the aggressive marketing of their e-banking services.

But the growth in the number of persons turning to banks’ free online services could threaten bank profits in coming years.

Last year, for example, NCB raked in $5.9 billion in fees and commissions charged against customers’ accounts for transactions with the bank, but spent only $1.2 billion on their collection.

The upshot is that for every dollar of fee/commission income collected, the bank retains just under 80 cents as profit.

penalty charges

In the case of Scotibank, it spent $1 billion to collect $4.86 billion in fees - retaining 78 cents as profit.

Its fees as a proportion of operating profit was 29 per cent; for NCB it was 44 per cent.

A sampling of bank charges, contained in a recent survey done by the Consumer Affairs Commission and released earlier this week, revealed no standardisation of fees among the banks.

For example, closure of an account within 90 days attracted penalty charges ranging from a low of $356 at FirstCaribbean International Bank, to a high of $2,000 at First Global Bank.

Interest charged on overdraft ranged from a low of 21.5 per cent, charged by BNS, to a high of 50 per cent, charged by First Global.

Five of Jamaica’s seven commercial banks participated in the survey - BNS, FirstCaribbean Jamaica, First Global, NCB and RBTT Bank. Citibank NA and Pan Caribbean Bank Limited did not.

Banking officials believe the growth in the use of their online service will continue to increase as customers overcome security concerns.

“Security in the past was one of the hurdles, but now they know the system is a world-class system in terms of world-class protocols.” said Walrond.

RICE AND PEAS; MACARONI PIE

CHICKEN PELAU; GARLIC POTATO

SWEET POTATO PIE; STEAMED VEGS

FRIED AND GRILLED FISH; SPARERIBS

BBQ PIG TAILS; CHICKEN STEW; 

FISH GRAVY; SALADS